Metropol

Nini wrote:Huh, so it is. Right, anyone ready to say factually inaccurate things?

Odd that you should ask that, because following a comment on the BBC's US Election coverage the other night I did briefly look into the legality of the title "President-Elect".

The website operated as the 'Unoffical Homepage of the President-Elect' makes no mention in its main pages of the fact that Obama does not officially become 'President-Elect' until after the Electoral College votes are counted on 6 January 2009. Until that time he is actually 'President-Designate'.

All media sources are therefore factually incorrect in referring to him as 'Elect' until that date. A quick glance at the ever reliable wiki, shows that 'Elect' is generally accepted as a colloquial term though from the date of the General Election.

Does that meet your criteria of 'factually incorrect', Nini?

PS: I'm sure too many years in the Civil Service made me a nervous pedant for correct titles

Stuart* wrote:PS: I'm sure too many years in the Civil Service made me a nervous pedant for correct titles

That and an horrendous dullard.

Ison has it. When I want someone to be wrong, I mean for something they threw out there as fact (usually some form of truthiness) rather than something they pulled out of their arse as something to be knocked down.

Once again, your ability to focus on the minutiae and miss the subject at hand is making a fool of you.

Nini wrote:When I want someone to be wrong, I mean for something they threw out there as fact (usually some form of truthiness) rather than something they pulled out of their arse as something to be knocked down.

You asked for something that was 'factually incorrect'. I highlighted one which what relevant to this thread.

Nini wrote:Once again, your ability to focus on the minutiae and miss the subject at hand is making a fool of you.

The minuntiae are where the inaccuracies lie...you idiot! I was, of course, making a point, not starting a debate.

But no doubt as a blood-thirsty wanna-be member of the Metropol hunting pack, you launched into attack mode.

Stuart* wrote:The minuntiae are where the inaccuracies lie...you idiot!

Actually, minutiae (without a second n) is defined as "small and often unimportant details", so a bit of a double whammy there.

But no doubt as a blood-thirsty wanna-be member of the Metropol hunting pack, you launched into attack mode.

Now see here - I'm really getting tired of you referring to Metropol as a den of vicious, "blood thirsty" animals.

I feel somewhat forced into pointing out that the common denominator in these "pack hunts" is you. We have lots of members who don't fall into this "clique" that I hear so much about, yet they don't elicit such vociferous responses.

I'm just not sure it is fair for the casual reader to be given the impression that everyone is going to be attacked by a posse of long-time members - and that's what you keep doing. Whether its in jest or not it leave a bitter taste, to me.

Well said on the Designate / Elect element Stuart* - I have complained to the BBC about their misuse of terms. It's crtical too, with the succession diferences that apply before and after the college meeting result is known.

I liked the Paxman - Rascal Interview last night....


Jeremy Paxman interviewed Dizzee Rascal last night (other interviewee was Labour Peer, Baroness Amos).

Clip ....

DVB Cornwall wrote:Well said on the Designate / Elect element Stuart* - I have complained to the BBC about their misuse of terms. It's crtical too, with the succession diferences that apply before and after the college meeting result is known.

Thanks DVB...at least someone actually took notice of my post.

Stu, Kernow, yknow how the term President-Elect is wrong and President-Designate is fitting until such time the college votes are counted? What's the term in general use, not President-Designate is it? It should be but it's not. Thing here is that I've had a lookaround on the official sites and it seems the term has fallen out of use through normal evolution of language.

Why do you hate the English language Stu? Seems to be a bit of a sticking point for you.

Should be designate....

The critical difference is that until the results of the meetings of the electoral college have been held and attested in each state the result of the election isn't confirmed. If, God forbid, Barack Obama is assassinated or dies, the electoral college is NOT obliged to vote Joe Biden into the office of President. They could concur and elect someone different. Whether they would is of course up-to-debate.

Once the Attested Electoral College votes are passed to Congress the result of the election passes into law and the terms of the Presidential Succession Act come into place.

The winner of the election then becomes President Elect.

Don't rise to it DVB. Nini has a bone now and won't let it go.

We were right!

As for your 'pack hunters', I suggest you see to those yourself, Gavin; I'm not going to enter into a discussion that was aired in another thread.

DVB Cornwall wrote:Should be designate....
The winner of the election then becomes President Elect.

Remember...there has been a US President in living memory who wasn't even elected Vice-President: Gerald Ford!

He was made to VP by the US Senate after Nixons' VP resigned, and then became President when Nixon resigned.

So don't doubt the complexities of the US constitution before you start labelling people with titles.